Amay Pandey Versus Dy. CIT, Circle-Sawai Madhopur, Kota (Raj.)

2016 (5) TMI 1185 - ITAT JAIPUR

Disallowance of claim of expenses incurred against the professional receipts received from “Resonance Institute”, Kota - Held that:- The assessee has not produced any evidence either before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and also not before us. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the expenses as claimed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the evidences before the Assessing Officer to complete the set aside proceedings. Accordingly, bot .....

er of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09. The effective ground of appeal for A.Y.2007-08 is as under:- 1. The ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the claim of expenses of ₹ 7,94,673/- incurred by the assessee against the professional receipts received from Resonance Institute , Kota. He has further erred in confirming the said disallowance holding that no evidence in support of claim of expenses was filed ignoring that .....

U/s 143(3) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that during the years under consideration, the assessee had been working as a lecturer with Resonance , and coaching institute situated in Kota.. He had received salary at ₹ 90,000/- and fee of ₹ 12,06,000/- in A.Y. 2007-08 and remuneration of ₹ 17,80,000/- in A.Y. 2008-09 in form No. 16A. However, in computation of total income, the assessee had shown income from business or profession at ₹ 5,01,327/- for A.Y. 2007-08 af .....

re expenses at ₹ 21,717/-, travelling at ₹ 24,134/-, telephone expenses at ₹ 16,520/-, rent ₹ 75,600/- and other expenses at ₹ 1,46,023/-. The ld Assessing Officer found that the expenses claimed in both the years are not allowable in case of salary of person. Therefore, he resorted a colourful device to treat the salary income as professional income which cannot be allowed to be a part of tax planning. He has given comparable case of other professional in the light .....

ployees with a coaching Institution but, just for the purpose of remuneration, declared themselves professional in order to get their TDS deduction at much lower rate and also to claim undue expenses to reduce the tax liability further. The work assigned to the assessee by his institute was the main duty of a teacher not a professional, i.e. technical work, test paper setting, solutions, daily practice problem, development of literature and copies checking. The nature of service and service cond .....

.Y. 2007-08, the finding of the ld CIT(A) is as under:- 5.3 I have considered the contentions of the appellant as well as assessment order. It is seen that assessee has shown the professional receipts of ₹ 12,06,000 and salary income of ₹ 90,000 which has been treated as other income by the assessee. Accordingly, assessee claimed that expenses of ₹ 7,94,673 should be allowed against above income. The AO has rejected the above claim of the assessee and has disallowed the claim o .....

ed. It is seen that the above agreement is between the institute and Shri Amay Pandey has been stated to be consultant. The assessee is involved in carrying out various duties as per clause 2.3 regarding advising the institute in designing the course structure of the chemistry' for IIT- JEE aspirants and policy formulation with regard to student in take, class size etc. along with other activities including teaching as mentioned in the Clause 2.3 of the agreement. Further, as per Clause 7.3, .....

tant detailed below are on maximum sincerity and best efforts basis in practical sense and not in legally technical sense and do not affect the consultant s freedom of methodology as also scheduling, structuring and delivery of their functions, so long as they are broadly in conformity with Institute's methodology, schedules and sequence…………. It may be mentioned that assessee has also explained that the word used in the contract is consultancy agreement between th .....

ve been held to be professional receipts. In view of above discussion and submissions of the appellant, the above receipts of ₹ 12,06,000 are treated as professional receipts while the balance receipts of ₹ 90,000 are treated as salary receipts as AO has mentioned that Form No. 16 had been issued to the assessee for the above payment while the assessee has not filed any submission or evidence to show that they are not the salary receipts. ii. As regarding the claim of the expenses of .....